That IMO is completely backwards. (Although the Trump team has already done away with enforcement of #1.)
First, it would be “fixing Obamacare” rather than getting rid of it, and second, it would be disastrous policy. Whenever you offer a tax credit or deduction for something you are subsidizing it, making it more expensive, and encouraging markets to be distorted to fit more stuff under the deduction or credit.
In this case, you would be making far worse the distortion that we already have by allowing corporations to give employees tax free “healthcare”. That’s what has led to kitchen sink coverage and inserted third parties into the payment of every little healthcare expense. This has effectively removed price signals from the market and taken away any incentive for either providers or users of health services to pay any attention to the cost of what is being provided.
Further, you would be giving a big tax break to the wealthiest, as they have pay the highest income tax percentages and so would both get the biggest savings on their insurance generally, and also would have the greater ability to buy the more expensive plans—thus further increasing the break that is given to them. Any time you have any sort of tax break like that you are further breaking the incentive of relatively low tax rates, since tax rates have to be relatively higher to cover the government revenue lost to those breaks. Tort reform, which you are suggesting, would also limit patients’ rights in a way that would likely further erode healthcare quality IMO.
I have no idea what you mean by #10, and the reason most people buy through the exchanges is because they have income above the level of qualifying for Medicaid, but at a level that Obamacare makes their coverage free or nearly free.
Also, there is already great resistance in Congress to undo Obamacare, and if Trump delays even until later this year, the impetus will be weakened, let alone once they are at risk of losing their GOP majority in the House in 2018.
Finally, Trump rightly campaigned on repeal and replace.
First, my point #10 refers to (for example) allowing Aetna Healthcare of Delaware to merge with Aetna Healthcare of Connecticut and Aetna Healthcare of Utah and so on. Paperwork and overhead costs would be reduced.
Second, I think that you and I disagree about the likelihood that ObamaCare could actually be repealed without simultaneously providing a “replacement”.
Since I think that stand-alone “Repeal” is DOA, I want to focus on providing conditions that would encourage free-market entrepreneurs to provide a variety of health-care insurance plans, designed to appeal to many different types of consumers.
IMHO, if the cost of individual, “portable” healthcare plans is reduced by making their premiums tax-deductible, then employer-provided healthcare plans would become less attractive.
If keeping “...the wealthiest...” from getting the full benefit of such tax deductions is desired, then a “cap” to limit deductions is a simple solution.